# C_2019270EN.01005201.xml

| 12.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/52

---

Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Iccrea Banca v SRB

(Case T-400/19)

(2019/C 270/54)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Iccrea Banca SpA Istituto Centrale del Credito Cooperativo (Rome, Italy) (represented by P. Messina, F. Isgrò and A. Dentoni Litta, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| a) | principally:






  — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board SRB/ES/SRF/2019/10 of 16 April 2019 and, as appropriate, the annexes to that decision, as well as any other decisions of the Single Resolution Board even those of which the applicant is unaware, on the basis of which the Banca d’Italia (Bank of Italy) adopted decisions Nos 0543938/19 of 24 April 2019 and 0733800/19 of 7 June 2019; |
| --- | --- | --- |

a)

principally:

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board SRB/ES/SRF/2019/10 of 16 April 2019 and, as appropriate, the annexes to that decision, as well as any other decisions of the Single Resolution Board even those of which the applicant is unaware, on the basis of which the Banca d’Italia (Bank of Italy) adopted decisions Nos 0543938/19 of 24 April 2019 and 0733800/19 of 7 June 2019;

| — | order the payment of compensation to Iccrea Banca for the damage caused to it, in terms of higher rates paid, by the Single Resolution Board when determining the contributions owed by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment of compensation to Iccrea Banca for the damage caused to it, in terms of higher rates paid, by the Single Resolution Board when determining the contributions owed by the applicant.

| b) | in the alternative, and in the event that the above claims are rejected:






  — | declare invalid Article 5(1)(a) and (f) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements, (1) as being contrary to the fundamental principles of Community law, in particular the principles of equality, non-discrimination and proportionality, as enshrined in Article 2 TEU and interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union. |
| --- | --- | --- |

b)

in the alternative, and in the event that the above claims are rejected:

—

declare invalid Article 5(1)(a) and (f) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements, (1) as being contrary to the fundamental principles of Community law, in particular the principles of equality, non-discrimination and proportionality, as enshrined in Article 2 TEU and interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

| c) | in any event, order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

c)

in any event, order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is directed against the decision of the Single Resolution Board SRB/ES/SRF/2019/10 of 16 April 2019 and the relevant annexes thereto as well as any subsequent decisions of the Single Resolution Board, including those of which the applicant is unaware, on the basis of which the contributions under Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements were determined with regard to the applicant.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging (i) failure to carry out a proper inquiry, (ii) error of assessment of the facts, (iii) infringement and misapplication of Article 5[(1)](a) of Regulation 2015/63, and (iv) infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and sound administration.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that the Single Resolution Board erred in its application of Article 5[(1)](a) of Regulation 2015/63 when determining the amount of the contributions owed by the applicant by not having taken intragroup liabilities into consideration. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging (i) failure to carry out a proper inquiry, (ii) error of assessment of the facts, (iii) infringement and misapplication of Article 5[(1)](a) of Regulation 2015/63, and (iv) infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and sound administration.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that the Single Resolution Board erred in its application of Article 5[(1)](a) of Regulation 2015/63 when determining the amount of the contributions owed by the applicant by not having taken intragroup liabilities into consideration.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging (i) failure to carry out a proper inquiry, (ii) error of assessment of the facts, (iii) infringement and misapplication of Article 5[(1)](f) of Regulation 2015/63, and (iv) infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and sound administration.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that the Single Resolution Board erred in its application of Article 5[(1)](f) of Regulation 2015/63, thereby resulting in double counting. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging (i) failure to carry out a proper inquiry, (ii) error of assessment of the facts, (iii) infringement and misapplication of Article 5[(1)](f) of Regulation 2015/63, and (iv) infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and sound administration.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that the Single Resolution Board erred in its application of Article 5[(1)](f) of Regulation 2015/63, thereby resulting in double counting.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the unlawful conduct of an EU body giving rise to non-contractual liability under Article 268 TFEU






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that the conduct of the Single Resolution Board meets all the relevant conditions for non-contractual liability under EU case-law, namely unlawfulness of the alleged conduct of the institutions, the actual existence of damage, and the presence of a causal link between the adopted conduct and the alleged damage. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the unlawful conduct of an EU body giving rise to non-contractual liability under Article 268 TFEU

—

The applicant claims in this regard that the conduct of the Single Resolution Board meets all the relevant conditions for non-contractual liability under EU case-law, namely unlawfulness of the alleged conduct of the institutions, the actual existence of damage, and the presence of a causal link between the adopted conduct and the alleged damage.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, in the alternative and incidentally, alleging that Regulation 2015/63 infringes the principles of effectiveness, equivalence and equal treatment and is consequently inapplicable.






  — | The applicant claims in that regard that a possible contradiction between that regulation and the situation of the applicant would infringe the abovementioned principles to the extent that persons in the same factual situation as Iccrea would be subject to reductions of contributions, leading to an unlawful deterioration of the applicant’s situation, with the consequence that similar situations would be treated differently. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, in the alternative and incidentally, alleging that Regulation 2015/63 infringes the principles of effectiveness, equivalence and equal treatment and is consequently inapplicable.

—

The applicant claims in that regard that a possible contradiction between that regulation and the situation of the applicant would infringe the abovementioned principles to the extent that persons in the same factual situation as Iccrea would be subject to reductions of contributions, leading to an unlawful deterioration of the applicant’s situation, with the consequence that similar situations would be treated differently.

---

(1)  OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44.

---